[Olsr-dev] [Olsr-users] olsrd 0.6.6.1 (and earlier) ipv6 problems

Henning Rogge (spam-protected)
Fri Mar 28 12:42:49 CET 2014


How many leaf nodes do you have?

Number of routes is not that important.

Henning Rogge

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Russell Senior
<(spam-protected)> wrote:
> The MTU on the OpenVPN tunnel is 1280.  That explanation does sound quite
> plausible.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>
>> It was worth the idea, it could have been a race condition between the
>> message flooding and the OpenVPN multicast handling.
>>
>> I also think that "message fragmentation" is an issue here...
>>
>> 180 routes means that neither your Hello nor your TC does fit in a
>> single UDP packet... which means the TCs/Hellos have to be fragmented
>> by Olsrd, which is a codepath that is not well tested because it
>> normally is not necessary.
>>
>> Thats mosts likely the reason why IPv4 is working, the messages do not
>> become fragmented.
>>
>> Henning Rogge
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Russell Senior
>> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> > Clarification:
>> >
>> > Mode "ether" does not explain the route collapse with too many nodes
>> > participating.
>> >
>> > Mode "ether" does seem to explain the lack of individual routes on the
>> > "leaf" nodes.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Russell Senior
>> > <(spam-protected)>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It could be, but it isn't ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Even with Mode "ether" commented out, I'm still seeing the same route
>> >> collapse behavior when too many devices are on.
>> >>
>> >> Commenting it out did improve the route propagation to the "leaf" nodes
>> >> though.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> mode "ether" should only be used by a group of OLSRd that run on the
>> >>> same ethernet switch... which means everyone can see everyone else.
>> >>>
>> >>> It suppress some forwarding of incoming OLSR messages because it
>> >>> assumes that everyone on this interface has already seen the message
>> >>> anyways.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the "hub" had "mode ether" activated it could be a good explanation
>> >>> what happened.
>> >>>
>> >>> Henning
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Russell Senior
>> >>> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> >>> > I should have done this earlier, but here are my olsrd.conf files.
>> >>> > On
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > server:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > ===================================================
>> >>> > IpVersion 6
>> >>> >
>> >>> > #Hna4
>> >>> > #{
>> >>> > #}
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hna6
>> >>> > {
>> >>> >         0::     0
>> >>> > }
>> >>> >
>> >>> > LinkQualityFishEye  0
>> >>> >
>> >>> > LoadPlugin "olsrd_txtinfo.so.0.1"
>> >>> > {
>> >>> >         PlParam "port" "7862"
>> >>> > }
>> >>> >
>> >>> > #############################################
>> >>> > ### OLSRD default interface configuration ###
>> >>> > #############################################
>> >>> > # the default interface section can have the same values as the
>> >>> > following
>> >>> > # interface configuration. It will allow you so set common options
>> >>> > for
>> >>> > all
>> >>> > # interfaces.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > InterfaceDefaults {
>> >>> >         # Ip4Broadcast      255.255.255.255
>> >>> > }
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Interface "ptp" "ptp-udp" "vpn" "iris"
>> >>> > {
>> >>> > #       Mode "ether"
>> >>> > }
>> >>> > =====================================================
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I am pretty sure that Hna4 { } part had been there uncommented for a
>> >>> > while.
>> >>> > The Mode "ether" was uncommented too.  When I commented them out, as
>> >>> > above,
>> >>> > and restart I see the individual routes on the client, as you would
>> >>> > expect.
>> >>> > I had noticed the "route aggregation" and been a little surprised,
>> >>> > but
>> >>> > having just moved to a newer version, I wasn't too suspicious.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On the clients:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > =====================================================
>> >>> >
>> >>> > IpVersion 6
>> >>> >
>> >>> > LinkQualityFishEye 0
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hna6
>> >>> > {
>> >>> >         2001:470:e962:xxyy::    64
>> >>> > }
>> >>> >
>> >>> > LoadPlugin "olsrd_txtinfo.so.0.1"
>> >>> > {
>> >>> >         PlParam "port" "7862"
>> >>> > }
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Interface "br-pub" "ptp"
>> >>> > {
>> >>> > }
>> >>> > =====================================================
>> >>> >
>> >>> > When it's working, I see 177 olsrd routes (the 180 figure included
>> >>> > some
>> >>> > header/footer lines, apparently) on the server and 176 on the
>> >>> > client.
>> >>> > But
>> >>> > if I add another node, the routes all collapse still.  It is
>> >>> > confusing
>> >>> > though.  Sometimes, I only see two routes, as below, apparently when
>> >>> > Mode
>> >>> > "ether" is in force.  It's confusing because sometimes I was seeing
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > more
>> >>> > complete client routing table even with Mode "ether".
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Table: Routes
>> >>> > Destination     Gateway IP      Metric  ETX     Interface
>> >>> > ::/0    2001:470:e962::407      1       1.000   ptp
>> >>> > 2001:470:e962::407/128  2001:470:e962::407      1       1.000   ptp
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I am turning Mode "ether" off again, and I seem to get a complete
>> >>> > set
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > routes (one less than the server) on the clients.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Again, though, if I add one more node, the routes on both the server
>> >>> > and
>> >>> > clients collapse.  The clients go to zero.  The server has routes to
>> >>> > one or
>> >>> > sometimes two clients, which vary a little bit.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Each leaf should have a /128 route for each other leaf...
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Olsrd does NOT do any route aggregation.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Can you show me a routing table of a leaf and the txtinfo output
>> >>> >> when
>> >>> >> everything is fine?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Henning
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Russell Senior
>> >>> >> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> >>> >> > FWIW, the ipv6 routing tables on the "leaf" nodes are quite
>> >>> >> > short,
>> >>> >> > with
>> >>> >> > mostly just a default route pointing at the central server, when
>> >>> >> > olsrd
>> >>> >> > is
>> >>> >> > working.  When the central server has the route collapse, the
>> >>> >> > default
>> >>> >> > route
>> >>> >> > on the "leaf" nodes disappears.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I am thinking about memory exhaustion, maybe something his
>> >>> >> > helpfully
>> >>> >> > killing
>> >>> >> > it off when the size becomes "too large" ... /me goes to look for
>> >>> >> > evidence
>> >>> >> > of that.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Russell Senior
>> >>> >> > <(spam-protected)>
>> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> The are single hop from the central server, which is the table
>> >>> >> >> I've
>> >>> >> >> been
>> >>> >> >> posting.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Henning Rogge
>> >>> >> >> <(spam-protected)>
>> >>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> What?
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> but your routing tables only contains "ETX 1.0" paths... which
>> >>> >> >>> means
>> >>> >> >>> they are single hop!
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> Henning
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Russell Senior
>> >>> >> >>> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> > Without the ipv6 olsrd, the nodes can't route to each other,
>> >>> >> >>> > it
>> >>> >> >>> > seems.
>> >>> >> >>> > I
>> >>> >> >>> > picked two I had turned off, and tried ping6'ing between them
>> >>> >> >>> > and
>> >>> >> >>> > got
>> >>> >> >>> > 100%
>> >>> >> >>> > packet loss.
>> >>> >> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Henning Rogge
>> >>> >> >>> > <(spam-protected)>
>> >>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> Hi,
>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> as far as I can see each "leaf" node can see each other leaf
>> >>> >> >>> >> node
>> >>> >> >>> >> over
>> >>> >> >>> >> the OpenVPN, right?
>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> So you are only using Olsrd to distribute HNAs?
>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> Henning Rogge
>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Russell Senior
>> >>> >> >>> >> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >> > The central server, ::407, is running OpenVPN in server
>> >>> >> >>> >> > mode.
>> >>> >> >>> >> > The
>> >>> >> >>> >> > "leaf"
>> >>> >> >>> >> > nodes all connect to it via OpenVPN client mode with a tap
>> >>> >> >>> >> > interface.
>> >>> >> >>> >> > We
>> >>> >> >>> >> > statically provision the IPv6 addresses on the vpn.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> > And yes, the OpenVPN links are still active.  We are
>> >>> >> >>> >> > running
>> >>> >> >>> >> > an
>> >>> >> >>> >> > IPv4
>> >>> >> >>> >> > instance of olsrd (same version) in parallel and those
>> >>> >> >>> >> > routes
>> >>> >> >>> >> > (to
>> >>> >> >>> >> > the
>> >>> >> >>> >> > very
>> >>> >> >>> >> > same devices) are not affected.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> > We see the problem when particular (though varying) nodes
>> >>> >> >>> >> > olsrd
>> >>> >> >>> >> > ipv6
>> >>> >> >>> >> > instances are started/stopped.  Sometimes the nodes are
>> >>> >> >>> >> > running
>> >>> >> >>> >> > 0.6.6.1,
>> >>> >> >>> >> > and
>> >>> >> >>> >> > sometimes 0.6.4.  It doesn't seem to be specific.  The
>> >>> >> >>> >> > central
>> >>> >> >>> >> > server is
>> >>> >> >>> >> > running 0.6.6.1 now, but we saw the same thing earlier
>> >>> >> >>> >> > (which
>> >>> >> >>> >> > is
>> >>> >> >>> >> > why
>> >>> >> >>> >> > I
>> >>> >> >>> >> > upgraded) on 0.6.4.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> > One other potential clue (it doesn't make very much sense,
>> >>> >> >>> >> > because I
>> >>> >> >>> >> > know
>> >>> >> >>> >> > there are much bigger networks than ours), I've never seen
>> >>> >> >>> >> > more
>> >>> >> >>> >> > than
>> >>> >> >>> >> > 186
>> >>> >> >>> >> > ipv6 routes on ::407.  We seem to see the problem when we
>> >>> >> >>> >> > try
>> >>> >> >>> >> > to
>> >>> >> >>> >> > exceed
>> >>> >> >>> >> > that.  I'm going to try to confirm that.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Henning Rogge
>> >>> >> >>> >> > <(spam-protected)>
>> >>> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> Hi,
>> >>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> I must admit that I am not convinced that its an Olsrd
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> bug
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> what
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> we
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> are
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> seeing...
>> >>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> If I see it correctly Olsrd is running over the VPN
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> interface
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> connection (interface name "vpn"), right?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> Is the VPN connection between the nodes still active
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> during
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> the
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> route
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> loss? Most of the nodes seem to have direct connections
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> and
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> the
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> "30
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> seconds until recovery" sounds like an ETX value slowly
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> going
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> down
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> and
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> then dropping the link.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> Henning
>> >>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Saverio Proto
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> <(spam-protected)>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > Hello Russel,
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > looking at this:
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-before.txt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-during.txt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-after.txt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > it looks like IPv6 routes are removed from the olsrd
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > database.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > So
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > I
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > is
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > actually the olsrd daemon involved.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > do you know if there is a previous stable version of
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > olsrd
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > where
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > this
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > bug/behaviour is not present ?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > In my opinion the fastest way to track the bug is to
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > try
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > different
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > versions of olsrd with "git bisect" method.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > The first step is to tell us if there is a version of
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > olsrd
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > that
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > is
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > not affected by this problem.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > thanks
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > I cc: olsrd-dev
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > Saverio
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > 2014-03-27 10:37 GMT+01:00 Russell Senior
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > <(spam-protected)>:
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> "Henning" == Henning Rogge
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> <(spam-protected)>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> writes:
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> On 03/26/2014 07:41 PM, Russell Senior wrote:
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>> Anybody get a chance to look at the strace?  I see
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>>> a:
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> strace and packet dumps are much too lowlevel
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> to
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> directly
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> hunt problems like this. Thats why Saverios
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> question
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> about
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> txtinfo good, because it gives you a much
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> more
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> high-level
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> view on what is going on.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I had not installed the modules previously, so that
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> interface
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> wasn't
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> immediately available.  It is now.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> [...]
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> Okay, lets get back to the high-level view.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> To interpret the events you described we need
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> a
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> list
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> of
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> nodes, with their interface IPs and the
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> connectivity
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> between
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> them.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Here is the list of neighbors of 2001:470:e962::407.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> The
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> addresses
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> listed are on the public wifi.  The OpenVPN addresses
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> of
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> each
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> node
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> are
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> a permutation, e.g. if the public wifi addr is
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 2001:470:e962:wxyz::1,
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> then the OpenVPN address of the node is
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> 2001:470:e962::wxyz.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> None of the nodes connect directly, everything goes
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> through
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ::407.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> From curl -6 http://localhost:$port/neighbors
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-neighbors.txt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> I am also a bit worried about your usage of
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> bridges
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> connected to mesh interfaces.  Normally you
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> should
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> no
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> bridge
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> any interface that OLSR uses for meshing.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Mixing
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> routing
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> (L3) and bridging (L2) can go wrong in very
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> creative
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ways.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I don't understand how the bridges could be a problem
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> in
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> this
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> case.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> This is a hub and spoke topology.  One openvpn server
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> in
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> middle,
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nodes at the edges.  None of the nodes interconnect
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> otherwise.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Olsr
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> is broadcast on the wifi in case there are any olsrd
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> devices
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nearby,
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> but, again, there is no overlap in the wifi coverage
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (and
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> if
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> there
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> were physically, they are on different SSIDs and
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> wouldn't
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> overlap
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> logically).
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Can you explain more about what in particularly would
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> make
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> you
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> worry?
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> This configuration has been stable for us on ipv4 for
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> years
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> and
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> also
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> on ipv6 until very recently, since late 2012 at least.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> So, I
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> suspect
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> a bug.  Somewhere.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> Txtinfo output would be good (especially
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> /route)
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> would
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> be
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> good to see...  before the problem, during
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> problem
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> and
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> after the recovery.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I'm using curl -6 http://localhost:$port/routes to get
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> following
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> data, before, during and after turning on an ipv6
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> olsrd
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> on a
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> particular node (2001:470:e962:11c1::1).
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-before.txt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-during.txt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-after.txt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> It would also help if you can reduce the
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> number
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> of
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nodes
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Henning> while still replicating the problem to a
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> minimum.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I don't have that level of control, unfortunately.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> When
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> I
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> notice
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> that
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the ipv6 routes have collapsed, I pick a likely
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> seeming
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> node
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (maybe
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> because it had been plugged in recently) and turn off
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ipv6
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> olsrd,
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> and
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> over 30-60 seconds, magically the routes all come
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> back.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> My
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> luck
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> in
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> guessing the right node to turn off is a little bit
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> "too
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> good",
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> if
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> you
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> know what I mean, so that I am not sure there is
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> anything
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> particularly
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> unique about the node I choose.  But, nevertheless,
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> turning
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> it
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> off
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> seems to help, generally.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> FWIW, I'm including olsrd versions here.  The central
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> machine
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ::407
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> is
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> running 0.6.6.1, compiled from the tarball.  The nodes
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> have
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> the
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> following versions, all built from openwrt routing
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> feed
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> sources.
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-versions-by-node.txt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Here is a table listing the frequency of each openwrt
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> version:
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>       1 0.6.3-3
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>      33 0.6.4-1
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>       1 0.6.5.1-1
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>       1 0.6.5.1-2
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>       7 0.6.5.2-1
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>       1 0.6.5.3-1
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>       2 0.6.5.4-1
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>       2 0.6.6-2
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>       7 0.6.6-3
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>      11 0.6.6.1-1
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> --
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Russell Senior, President
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (spam-protected)
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> --
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Olsr-users mailing list
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (spam-protected)
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > --
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > Olsr-dev mailing list
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > (spam-protected)
>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
>> >>> >> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>> >
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>




More information about the Olsr-dev mailing list